One of the largest problems in cryptography is the binding of particular data to an individual. This involves two steps. First the individual can be bound to some unique identifier (for example, typically, a key,). Next, the particular data can be signed or encrypted using the unique identifier (or key material). To accomplish the binding, the individual can be authenticated to the container or system that holds the cryptographic information. For any identity assurance model to have heightened effectiveness, it should include all the necessary parts for identification, authentication, and access control.
Access control can be defined as enforcing data-use or other object-use permissions that grant or deny access to content or applications. In this context, data-use can include a broad selection of functions such as reading, changing, executing, creating, overwriting, or deleting. The ability to change access permissions is another type of access that can be granted or denied.
Access control should be considered in a system approach in which a strong user (entity or member) identification and authorization (I&A) process plays a role.
Thus, the goal is to provide access control to objects such as data and applications. It should be flexible and suitable for implementing a variety of different schemes, such as discretionary access controls (DAC) and mandatory access controls (MAC). The key management system should be suitable for implementing a role-based access control system (RBAC). These controls should support content-based access control architectures that provide a very granular object level enforcement or that enable an expanded access.
Likewise, there are many systems that require user access. Some have many users and require authorized users to log in. Some require user identification to access a particular portion or aspect of the system. Some contain personal information. There are many reasons to restrict access to these systems to authorized users. Authorized users have to be identified before access can be granted.
For example, computer systems and subsystems are well known in the art. For security and privacy purposes, some computer systems include user identification protocols to limit access to authorized or validated users. For example, protocols are often put in place to limit access to the system, to a particular subsystem or other portion of the system, to particular databases, or to certain applications, documents and portions of documents, objects, and workstations. As used herein, the term “system” will be used to mean any of these entities. Such validation protocols are useful to the extent that they can provide reliable identification of an authorized user, and do not mis-identify an unauthorized user.
A conventional user identification protocol requires users to submit knowledge-based data, such as a password and user ID, in order to gain access to a computer system. A submitted user ID may be used to reference a password associated with the user ID, with the passwords being compared to determine whether a particular user is authorized to access the system. A benefit of knowledge-based identification protocols is that access to requisite knowledge-based data can be totally unavailable to unauthorized entities, which increases the overall strength of the protocol. For example, a user is not required to record knowledge-based data anywhere other than in the user's memory, that is, in the user's brain.
However, most knowledge-based identification protocols suffer from an inherent problem. To prevent the hacking or spoofing of the knowledge-based data, the complexity of the data can be increased. For example, longer or more complicated passwords can be specified to make guessing of the password less likely. However, knowledge-based data that is too complex might result in an unacceptably high rate of false negatives (for example, forgotten and/or mistyped data) or in weakened password practice (for example, users might perceive the need to record such data in insecure ways, such as on paper, because the data is too difficult to memorize). Similarly, to avoid such problems, the complexities of the knowledge-based data can be decreased. However, such a decrease in complexity can increase the protocol's susceptibility to hacking or spoofing.
Another conventional user identification protocol requires users to submit possession-based data, such as an authorization code stored on an access pass (for example, a magnetic-stripe card or a smart card), and the submitted code is evaluated to determine user access. A benefit of possession-based identification protocols is that the requisite possession-based data can be extraordinarily complicated, in order to minimize the likelihood that such data is hacked or spoofed. Another benefit is that possession-based data does not require memorization of the data by a user, so that complexity limitations can be avoided.
However, possession-based identification protocols suffer from a potential weakness. Possession-based data (that is, the data stored on the token or other storage medium) can be stolen or lost. Thus, someone who steals or otherwise obtains a user's access pass can spoof the protocol by mere possession of the access pass. Likewise, if the access pass is lost, a “false negative” is assured until it is replaced.
Another conventional user identification protocol requires users to submit biometric-based data, such as a fingerprint scan, for example, and this biometric data is evaluated to determine user access. Such an identification protocol generally includes two stages: enrollment and identification. During enrollment, a biometric instance (such as a fingerprint scan) is obtained, and unique characteristics or features of the biometric instance are extracted to form a biometric template, which is stored as an enrollment template for subsequent identification purposes. Identification involves obtaining a subsequent biometric instance reading of the same type, extracting unique characteristics or features of the subsequent biometric instance to form a new template (the verification template), and comparing the two biometric templates to determine identification of the user. A benefit of biometric-based identification protocols is that the requisite biometric-based data is unique, which minimizes the likelihood of such data being hacked or spoofed. Another benefit is that biometric-based data also does not require memorization of the data by a user.
However, some biometric-based identification protocols suffer from potential weaknesses. Biometric-based data samples of a particular user can be inconsistent from one sampling to another, and therefore these protocols can be subject to false negatives. To improve the reliability of biometric samplings, a larger biometric measurement may be sampled, in order to reduce the likelihood of false negatives. For example, a commercial solution known as Bioscript™ (Bioscript, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) utilizes such a methodology to account for distortions, such as cuts, scratches and other day-to-day variations of a user's fingerprint. However, increasing the size or scope of a biometric sample also increases the costs (such as electrical power, time, processing power, design and other implementation costs, training) incurred in utilizing a larger sample.
Therefore, it would be desirable to provide a method of identifying a user for access to a system that improves on conventional methods. It would also be desirable to provide an apparatus for enabling improved user identification techniques. It would also be desirable to provide a system to implement and utilize an improved method of identifying a user for access to a system. It would also be desirable to provide a computer-readable medium that stores instructions for controlling a computer to perform an improved method of identifying a user for access to a system.